To the editor:

With regard to the proposed development of income-restricted rental housing on Child Street, the Chair of the Planning Board is quoted saying that the State’s affordable housing law “completely ignores the right of a town to govern itself.”

I disagree. The Comprehensive Permit application introduced in 1991 by the Low-Moderate Income Housing Act sought to incentivize private development of income-restricted housing units by, in part, streamlining and consolidating municipal regulatory procedures. One change was to assign the municipal Planning Board as the sole reviewing body for Comp Permit applications, including zoning matters. Recent experience in Warren has shown that the Planning Board has performed this task in a thorough and professional manner. The ability of the town to “govern itself” has not been compromised.

Moreover, the regulatory relief granted by the Low-Mod Act is not available to applicants in municipalities where 10% of the housing stock is restricted by deed to tenants and owners based on clearly defined affordability standards. The Town has had over 30 years to reach this goal, and it has not. Had it done so, we would not be discussing Comp Permit applications at all.

Warren, like the rest of the region, has a severe housing crisis. Rental and home prices have skyrocketed, and an inadequate supply of all homes, especially affordable homes, is crippling our ability to thrive. We need a policy shift that will promote housing options (multi-family apartment buildings, accessory dwelling units, mill and institutional conversions, town homes, pocket neighborhoods) that will accommodate a wide range of housing needs. The Penny Lane development is one of those options.

How can a long term policy shift be realized? I believe that Warren’s zoning ordinance is a primary obstacle to the creation of new housing. With its focus on single-family zones, its onerous lot area minimums, its prohibitions against multi-family and mixed use development, and its outdated building coverage and parking requirements, the zoning ordinance needs a reboot. I live on Water Street in a legally non-conforming dwelling. The overwhelming majority of lots and residences in my neighborhood are also non-conforming, yet this is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in town. There’s a lesson there.

In the short term, projects like Penny Lane need to be embraced, and more like them encouraged. It has a highly regarded local non-profit development team with a track record of successful projects in adjacent communities. It features an attractive, low-rise design, and the proposed apartments will be available only to households earning not more than 60% of the Area Mean Income, or about $44,400. According to the latest report by Housing Works RI, the average cost of a market rate two-bedroom apartment in Warren requires a household income of over $93,000. Penny Lane’s 40 units (8.9 units/acre) will significantly “move the needle” toward the 10% minimum. There is no down side.

How does it make sense for the Planning Board to have denied the Penny Lane project based on “excessive” density, while at the same time approving the 20-unit Liberty Street application, with just 5 income-restricted units and a density of more than 30 units/acre? I suggest that the Board focus less on a perceived encroachment on its regulatory authority and more on the values that strengthen our community.

John Mensinger
67 Water St.